LOVNSVG head shows little knowledge of law, due process

Editor: Leave Out Violence in St Vincent and the Grenadines’ (LOVNSVG), a non-profit organization against violence and crime, was formed by Vincentian-Canadian Nyala John in 2012. Miss John has actively been a voice against violence on social media, and lately the issue of domestic violence against women, including sexual assault.{{more}}

The issue of sexual assault has become a hot topic in the US presidential elections, with Republicans struggling with the caught on tape admission by their candidate, Donald Trump, that he engaged in unsolicited sexual physical advances towards women. And closer home, a Vincentian-American woman recently accused this country’s Prime Minister of sexual assault.

So, it is with some interest, on October 15, 2016, I tuned in to Global Highlights, a programme, on Nice Radio hosted by NDP activist Luzette King that featured Miss John as a contributor to the issue of sexual assault and politics. While Miss John’s advocacy on the rights of victims is admirable, her ignorance of the law and due process leaves much to be desired.

I was shocked to hear her say that no politician accused of rape should be allowed to hold office. This is a recipe for disaster, in that politicians can easily influence women to accuse their opponents simply to win a political contest. The law, fortunately, protects the accused up to the point if or when the accuser can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the offence occurred. Miss John also joined with Miss King is stating incorrectly that the Prime Minister never faced several of his accusers in court.

The facts say otherwise. Two women (not several), Vincentian policewoman Michelle Andrews and Vincentian-Canadian lawyer Margaret Parsons, accused him of sexual assault. However, both cases were quashed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for lack of evidence on the part of the accusers. Both cases were appealed at the High Court and both appeals were dismissed for lack of credible evidence. The case by Andrews went as far as the OECS Court of Appeal and failed because the evidence was found to be the legal definition of ridiculous. The Appeal Court judges and the High Court judges used the terminology of frivolous and vexatious to describe these cases. In other words, they found the Prime Minister to be innocent of the charges.

Even the latest and third accusation must pass the test of evidence, the absence of which does not require the Prime Minister to “clear his name,” since in law, he is innocent until proven guilty. It is the fundamental element of law that protects everyone. Miss John must therefore not be violent to the law and the innocent in her enthusiasm to protect victims, real or imagined.

HB